Should round limit tie-breaker be based on total team troops or highest individual?

mc05025 wrote:In the general logic of the game being too simple and so any kind of more complicated gameplay is something I support I do like the current system. The current system adds complications as the players does not have to simply play the game normally till the end but they have to change their strategy and make one of the teammates as strong as they can close to the round limit.

The dead beating strategy on team game with round limit is something unacceptable and have to change at any cost.

My suggestion for that problem would be the change of the rule of the deadbeating. When a player deadbeats his troops should be change to neutral. People that kicked out of the game should not have any help to win the game and in a team game you are responsible from your teammates faults. If your teammate plays stupidly, you will lose the game. The same if he deadbeats. Next time pick your teammate more carefully. I can not see any drawbug at that logic and it fixes the problem I mentioned.

On the other hand I am sure that what I suggest is not going to be accomplished + the majority of the players do not care how complicated the game is. So instead of ignoring the problem I agree to that suggestions

Team Game Should always be about Teamwork... and team points and Team troop count fits. To play a whole game well and then lose it in the last round because the opponents have one man with a few extra men... when the rest of the board is sitting one round away from annihilation... well that's just silly.

So I agree that the code needs to be changed for team games to be team troop count at the end of the last round to determine what team wins.

start a doubles game on hyves, 10 round limit, deadbeat just before its over, and see who's enough of a fool to join because they didn't see the round limit.obviously you'd get taken for intentionally deadbeating, but the same could be sort of done with adjacent forts, no spoils, and fort&deploy everything on one player.

Catarah wrote:start a doubles game on hyves, 10 round limit, deadbeat just before its over, and see who's enough of a fool to join because they didn't see the round limit.obviously you'd get taken for intentionally deadbeating, but the same could be sort of done with adjacent forts, no spoils, and fort&deploy everything on one player.

wow i think i was the only one who never reached round limit in a team game before and just realized this rule.. in my dispite! definitely a retarded rule, troops are all the team's not from a given player!!!!

by the way, question what is the tiebreak condition? total team troops, or total territories of the guy with the most troops in each team??

betiko wrote:wow i think i was the only one who never reached round limit in a team game before and just realized this rule.. in my dispite! definitely a retarded rule, troops are all the team's not from a given player!!!!

by the way, question what is the tiebreak condition? total team troops, or total territories of the guy with the most troops in each team??

Click on instructions at the top. Then Game Options. Scroll down to round limit. It's total troops, then territories, then the order the game was joined.

games are not won because the team holds an objective. it is up to the team to position an individual to take and hold the objective.

This is a very true statement.

However, I would say that there are very few games that holding an objective gets snuck in there without it being the most dominate team in the game. Regardless of which individual has the most troops.

I think that when a certain mechanic gets "quirky" and forces players to adopt a particular inconvenient and possibly counter-intuitive strategy it affects gameplay - makes the game less enjoyable.Just read through some forum discussion on intentional deadbeating to pass troops to a teammate for the win in a round limit game. Fix it with this change.Total team strength is a more natural/logical measure as a winning condition.Single player troops as a measure of team strength adds a more artificial layer to strategy and hinders gameplay.

I think that when a certain mechanic gets "quirky" and forces players to adopt a particular inconvenient and possibly counter-intuitive strategy it affects gameplay - makes the game less enjoyable.Just read through some forum discussion on intentional deadbeating to pass troops to a teammate for the win in a round limit game. Fix it with this change.Total team strength is a more natural/logical measure as a winning condition.Single player troops as a measure of team strength adds a more artificial layer to strategy and hinders gameplay.

With the change in administration we're transitioning to a new system for how to get suggestions pushed through, and I'll try to get this near the top of the list because it's not an extensive change.

I think that when a certain mechanic gets "quirky" and forces players to adopt a particular inconvenient and possibly counter-intuitive strategy it affects gameplay - makes the game less enjoyable.Just read through some forum discussion on intentional deadbeating to pass troops to a teammate for the win in a round limit game. Fix it with this change.Total team strength is a more natural/logical measure as a winning condition.Single player troops as a measure of team strength adds a more artificial layer to strategy and hinders gameplay.

With the change in administration we're transitioning to a new system for how to get suggestions pushed through, and I'll try to get this near the top of the list because it's not an extensive change.

I have been on a team where we had less troops overall, but one strong player and because of that we won. I think this doesn't really need implemented because if people know what is going on in the game, they can pile troops to win. The problem is that it really depends on the map and situation as to which team would actually win if the game played out.

IMO, don't change gameplay options unless there is an egregious error. This is not an error, it's a personal preference.

Chap, I agree with you generally, but the response to this has been overwhelming that it needs to change. I think that this could have (and has actually) added a unique feature to the gameplay. But I think the majority has spoken. Further, there are limited circumstances where the current system can be abused by deadbeating that the alternative would not suffer. I'm of the opinion that this will be one of the next implemented suggestions. Almost everyone seems to think that the current system is ridiculous.

agentcom wrote:Chap, I agree with you generally, but the response to this has been overwhelming that it needs to change. I think that this could have (and has actually) added a unique feature to the gameplay. But I think the majority has spoken. Further, there are limited circumstances where the current system can be abused by deadbeating that the alternative would not suffer. I'm of the opinion that this will be one of the next implemented suggestions. Almost everyone seems to think that the current system is ridiculous.